10 comments:

It's a thing in some of the neo-confederate fever swamps associated with LVMI to claim the civil war was really fought over tariffs. DiLorenzo is the worst of these. Tom Woods seems to realize that slavery played a part, because he blames ... abolitionists!

I got yelled at a lot over at Murphy's for pointing this out and called a liar etc, even after I presented quotes from Woods.

A useful place to start for those interested. http://reason.com/archives/2005/06/01/behind-the-jeffersonian-veneer

Incidentally, there are two excellent recent books on the Republican policy on the destruction of slavery during the war, by James Oakes. Freedom National is a long and detailed scholarly book, and The Scorpion's Sting a shorter more popular distillation. I recommend the latter very highly. Both show the Rothbardians are cracked. In short: the Republican party started to do what it thought was constitutionally permitted to abolish slavery right from the time of the 1860 election.

I know the recommendation wasn't for me, but I'm definitely gonna check out those two books, Ken. Thanks.

From my experience, most of those who make the tariffs argument focus on the Morill Tariff as the catalyst...which is a pretty good example of how neo-confederates don't do their homework. The Morill Tariff didn't pass through both houses and get signed into law until after the south had seceded, and the odds are it wouldn't have been able to become a law had the south not seceeded...Louisiana would've been the decider, if memory serves correct, since tariffs were potentially good for Louisiana due to their ports.

Hey Lord Keynes, I've been reading your blogs for a while and this my first time commenting. Whilst this is about the GOP history with protectionism, the International Monetary Fund just released a report called "Neoliberalism: Oversold?"

I'm not sure if you already know about it but here's a link: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2016/06/ostry.htm

It's somewhat critical of the Washington Consensus it has pushed for the past 35 years and I was wondering what your thoughts are and if you plan to make a blog entry about it. Do you think a collapse of the neoliberal consensus could usher in a return to the protectionist policies currently being espoused by Donald Trump?

As for Trump and protectionism, it depends if he means what he says, and could push a protectionist program through Congress.

It may well be, as argued here, that, if Trump were ever to become US president, his time in office could be the “century’s most profound anti-climax … marked by boring stuff like indecision, gridlock, contradictions and frustration. A ‘liberal’ Trump is boxed in by a conservative Congress, and a weird, ‘impulsive’ Trump is de-fanged by the Democrats.”

I'm not concerned about a sensible turn from free trade nonsense to some form of protectionism. The West needs this desperately and to rebuild manufacturing. Most of GDP is internal anyway, not from export sectors.